Caitlin is echoing the words of populist Abrabam Lincoln who said, "Labor is the true standard of value."
"Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn."
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
"And I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world.”
"But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Note that Lincoln said it is the duty of any good government to protect the workers from having the fruits of their labor stolen by the class of owners who are not doing the work. There is no "Party of Lincoln" today in the duopoly party since both Republicans and Democrats don't believe in protecting workers from owner class exploitation and theft of the laborer's fruits.
Corporate limited liability exists, only because the law says so. There is also a substantial body of literature comparing the behavior of corporations where management are not necessarily owners with that of sociopaths.
Take away corporate limited liability, and where would modern-day capitalism be?
We can complain all we want or suggest gov to do this or that. But like Caitlin appears to be saying is IT can't be done bc everything is in the hands of the Capitalists.
Correct. It IS capitalism. No matter the rest of the regulations to control the herd of human cattle. But since during the last 50 years the intellectual representation of critique of political economy has been systematically wiped out from academe, and the intellectuals turned into opportunistic parasites and watch dogs of the good shepherds of western democracies, and almost any kind of rule besides the one in China and - again - What is now Russia has been declared to be 'democratic', the everyday consciousness of people raised - 'socialization - and conditioned by state education and mass media either state run or corporations, there is not a trace left of any semantic point of reference where an effective political opposition could crystallize its own intellectual representation without an entanglement in the phrases and semantic stereotypes of the white noise of the propaganda inundating the minds of the people held down with the empty and redundant nonsense and dissimulation the parasites - the intellectual have turned into - proliferate from payed outlets they are recruited for to fabricate the functional equivalents of the Roman Catholic Church of the late Imperium Romanum and the Middle Ages, that is: 'Social Technology', or more correct, since even this term is ideological: The technology to control and more, to systematically destroy anything that could be rightly called 'social'. So we have 'social sciences' were nothing social is left working, a science of 'society' without a society left, and a sociology that is cleaned from anything hinting at the permanent wars that are at the basis of all 'progress' and are a necessary ingredient of all 'development', and a kind of psychologcalization of 'political science, that always blames some malignant individual for the failures of attempts to make a better world with a world order of permanent peace, a practice to explain the world and the facts of geopolitics that provides for the pretext for' 'regime change' practice that destroys whole countries and civilizations with all the means for mass murder that the military/economic/parlamentary/financial/industrial complex can drop as a bomb carpet or a drone strike from heaven over the people who's death always is an accidental collateral damage.
Another great weaving of the same long thread, Caitlin. I'm no smarty-pants economist so my following comments are necessarily pedestrian:
Any system -- whatever you want to call it -- that results in 26 individuals controlling half the wealth of the planet is due for some sort of reckoning.
If you go back to the seventies and chart both productivity and CEO compensation you will see both rise steadily. What hasn't risen is worker compensation, even though they are creating more wealth. Why?
When financial institutions crashed the economy around 2008-09, they received bailout money under the TARP program. Bank of America, which received $45 billion in TARP money, paid itself $3.3 billion in bonuses, with 172 employees receiving at least $1 million. I leave this little tidbit here for those who still claim that our entire problem lies within government.
The democrat's bad Kabuki to raise the minimum wage from its current paltry sum of $7.25 needs no further comment. Any decently operating economic system shouldn't need a government-mandated wage at all, meager as it is. But we do need it, obviously. Why?
Unions are only as good as their leadership, but the decline in union membership mirrors the steady decline of the American worker. The largest employer in the 50s was IBM; now it's WalMart.
Most truth to be had these days comes from consumer-supported, often shoestring operations sprinkled around the Net; purveyors of the rankest disinformation (aside from government sources like the CIA and State Department) come from corporate platforms and industry-affiliated entities. If we get rid of the government as some suggest, this still doesn't address the glaringly uniform dearth of reliable information shoveled by corporate sources.
Thomas Jefferson may have had a thing for slaves, but he knew what he was talking about when he warned of the danger of "moneyed interests" perverting government to their own ends. Chalk one up for Tom.
Each and every attempt by people in this hemisphere to realize any form of Socialism has met with the most nefarious and extreme violence by the United States. Murder, rape, and assassination, for those in the cheap seats. Any economic system that merrily co-exists and indeed helps precipitate these actions really ought to explain itself.
I'll close with the words of that famous economist George Carlin: "The upper class owns all the wealth and pay none of the taxes; the middle class does all the work and pays all of the taxes; and the lower class is there to scare the hell out of the middle class."
Nor a world without the opportunity for each of us to accumulate capital for our own benefit.
I can imagine severe restrictions on, and prosecution of, those who use capital to corrupt government, as well as those who use their position in government to accumulate capital.
I assume that you are an American. Like most Americans, you seem to conflate "capitalism" with "government," (i.e. "democracy").
Let's look at it this way: it's a graph. One axis, let's say the 'Y' axis, is economics, from the least organized (controlled) - (hunter-gatherer) - to the most strictly controlled. The other axis, the 'X' axis is politics, from the least controlled system (small societies) to the most controlled (totalitarianism).
In this way, Americans can overcome the thinking that has been drilled into their heads since first grade that a particular economic system, which they have been taught is good/bad, with different political systems, which they have been taught are good/bad.
"Government" is different from the travesty that is now in control of the US. Of course some kind of government is better than none. But what kind? Humans have been trying to determine that since Plato.
I do not think most Americans conflate government and capitalism (it wouldn't be 'capitalism' anyway but 'business' which would include manufacturing, sales, etc.)
Many, if not most, Americans now recognize that government and business have become unified under control of the same people which some call the Oligarchy. The faces presented to us are different, but we know the power behind those faces is the same group.
However, when Caitlin writes about Capitalism, she does not explain how that is separate from Capital nor does she explain how "decision-making and investments are determined." Who decides what gets built and how resources are distributed?
Let's admit that even in Cuba, Doctors will abandon their calling to become limo drivers because that is how they can best accumulate capital. It is a more profitable way of deploying their labor.
Obviously, the distribution of wealth in the USA is immoral. Is that not a failure of politicians to rectify that situation? Which in turn means, that if we believe in democracy and one man one vote, a failure of the voter to ensure the politicians they support are moral men?
Yes, something should be done. But limiting that something to just "do away with capitalism", leaves an unimaginable void.
Let me make myself clear: I said "LIKE MOST AMERICANS...YOU" Her it is: I'm saying you are conflating "business"(capitalism) with "government." In general, I've found that, in your thinking, you tend to substitute one concept for another quite easily. Case in point: when I said "Like most Americans, YOU," you responded with "what most Americans (probably) think" instead of defending yourself from my politely-worded accusation. Or maybe you just don't get subtlety.
Speaking of shoestring operations around the Net, watch The Con documentary for the inside dope about the bank fraud that created the 2007-2008 housing crisis. After they stole people's homes with ploys such as using whiteout to cover the correct figures and putting in inflated figures, as well as signing documents with fake names. The TARP bailouts came later.
It also shows how the courts were supporting the banks.
Caitlin, your ignorance of what a corporation is or how one is created is not proof of your assertion that capitalism (private ownership of property) inevitably leads to corporatism as smoking leads to emphysema. In our system, governments grant corporate charters and in doing so grant those corporations 1) the privilege of limited liability for investors and 2) legal personhood. There is nothing inherent in private property ownership that implies government must recognize such corporate entities, grant their investors limited liability or give those entities the natural rights possessed by actual individual human beings.
It is possible for an economy to consist almost entirely of small shops and factories, each owned by individuals or partnerships in which investors are 100% liable for all debts and torts. Such small owners would be very reluctant to invest in enterprises they can't directly control in order to minimize the risk of unexpected torts or economic downturns causing them to default on loans. Due to the risk involved, infrastructure would be lacking unless government stepped in to fill the void through state-owned enterprises managed for the benefit of the entire population.
As yet, no society has chosen to take the path of private enterprise without corporate entities, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Yes, Limited Liability is a privilege. And what does society or Government get in return…? Well, in 2007/8 the European & US Govt bailout of the banking sector cost $4,000 billion! That was a banking sector that had unprecedented debt-to-equity leverage ratios, incredibly high risks and serious conflicts of interest between creditors and equity investors… and they could get away with it safe in the knowledge that they had been granted Limited Liability. Has much changed since then? No.
Whether it’s what individuals receive in return for their labour, or granting Limited Liability to corporations in return for so little, it’s our Governments that allow and indeed enable this to happen.
Reading this, one gets the impression that all this takes place in a vacuum. Corporations (and individuals as well) point to this or that law or regulation claiming its the law, yet neglect to mention all the intense lobbying (bribery, legal and otherwise) which goes into making certain that just such an outcome takes place. Corporations such as Apple and Google expend untold resources to ensure that anti-monopoly laws are not enforced. If we could magically get rid of government, I don't see these negative self-serving influences evaporating.
Unless we get rid of corporations at the same time we get rid of government, then make sure nobody can ever create a corporation in the future. We'd still be vulnerable to the authoritarianism of government bureaucrats, but if we've preserved small, non-corporate enterprises, we'd have some hope of countering government power centers.
Indeed, and let's also be clear on what "privilege" is. "Privilege" is a government-granted subsidy or advantage. All "privileges" are "advantages," but the reverse is not true. Some people are lucky enough to be born into a family that values education, as I was. This is not a government-granted "privilege," as in "white privilege," and poor whites are no more "privileged" in our society than the poor of any other race. Some are blessed with functional parents, as I was. Some do not have functional parents, but are raised by functional grandparents, as was JD Vance. They face the same murderous police as the poor of any other race, like Daniel Shaver or Tony Timpa. They face the same snobbery, as in Hillary's "deplorables" remark. They do not enjoy the government granted the privilege of affirmative action and therefore find it more difficult to be admitted to Ivy League schools. I write this as someone sympathetic to "racial justice" and true diversity, who taught in inner city schools and married a black woman, who supported the concept of affirmative action but not the quota system that inevitably followed. I would have designed affirmative action as seeking out disadvantaged individuals of ALL races, such as kids from economically depressed areas, or children of low income parents. It should never have been about race.
Sadly, most Americans are clueless as to what capitalism is. In fact, as Umair Haque recently pointed out, very few Americans are capitalists because they depend on earned wage incomes to survive. Likewise, Americans are clueless as to what the other major economic system, communism, is. We all just learned in high school that communism is the antithesis of free market trade and American democratic freedoms – it’s evil. That is all most people know.
In my view, there is ample evidence that both economic systems are equally vulnerable to corruption, and both systems exploit workers to a varying extent. The sturm un drang between the systems merely provides useful motivation to confuse and manipulate the workforces in either one.
Caitlin is a total Capitalist. She is using the fruits of Capitalism to speak. She has benefited tremendously from Capitalism. She is furthering Capitalism by using it's tools.
The air is polluted (by capitalists), yet we have to breathe it to survive. The water is polluted (by capitalists), yet we have to drink it. Would you fault a person for peacefully and eloquently criticizing that pollution? If Caitlin can reduce that pollution (of air, water, economy, and spirit), she will benefit everyone, you included, who will not have to pay her a dime for the benefit. Will you resent her for voluntarily gifting you, a stranger, a benefit for which you have not paid and which comes freely from the kindness of her heart. By capitalist standards, sharing and gifting are reprehensible “business models”, because we can take it or leave it, as we like. She does not violate an iota of our freedom. She does not use force or fraud to get you to buy her content. Can you say the same for landlords, oligarchs, or other capitalists who takes (by force of imperial law) their various forms of rent?
Environmentalism has only ever arisen in wealthy societies that have privately owned means of production. If you're worried about feeding yourself and your family, you don't give a shit about the environment. This is why pollution is worse in poorer countries. Just compare the environmental records of the USA vs the USSR.
The pollution is worse in poorer countries because they don't have the laws that industrially advanced countries have. Therefore, the advanced countries take advantage of this to move into the disadvantaged countries and pollute there, when they can't do it at home.
Case in point: DDT. When there was enough public outrage over DDT, it was banned in the US. However, they didn't stop making it; they just sold it to countries in Central and South America. (Where much of the food that is imported into the United States is grown. Karma's a bitch.)
And how do those laws come about? Did the government just have a great idea out of nowhere one day and impose them on us? Or, did the US get wealthy enough that activist groups started arising and pressured the gov't into those laws?
DDT's not the W you think it is. Yes, it is somewhat toxic, but Rachel Carson had no evidence for that at the time she was writing about it and completely fabricated everything in Silent Spring. Meanwhile, DDT wiped out malaria in North America, and you can sure as hell make an argument that DDT would be worth the tradeoff in Africa in order to get the malaria under control there. Malaria kills over 500k people every year.
One could argue that the first environmentalists were the most primitive native tribes who had a real stake in living in balance with their surroundings. And looking around today, one could rephrase your sentence to read, "If you're worried about your shareholder's third quarter profit margin, you don't give a shit about the environment." I believe Chevron has something to teach us about that.
> One could argue that the first environmentalists were the most primitive native tribes who had a real stake in living in balance with their surroundings.
and I'm sure a class of second-graders would think you were very deep
> I believe Chevron has something to teach us about that.
Now, yes, that is likely 90%+ propaganda and they don't talk about all the pollution they cause, but at the very least they're outwardly concerned about appearing environmentally conscious. Meanwhile, the USSR destroyed lake Baikal, stripped itself of its bounty of natural resources, and caused the greatest environmental disaster of all time at Chernobyl.
I was thinking more the Donziger case, but yeah, lot's of corporate greenwashing going on. It's all optics while their lobbyists work to strip any meaningful environmental actions out of relevant bills. It's the petroleum industry's version of being photographed kneeling in Kente cloth and then increasing Capitol Police funding a billion dollars.
And, yes, the Soviets polluted like crazy. No argument there. (How much their totalitarian brand represented all that Socialism has to offer is up for grabs).
The green energy industry has plenty of lobbyists of their own (and a whole lot more propaganda at their disposal since Hollywood is all in). It's strange to me when people act like only the oil companies lobby. These green energy fuckers are trying to replace working power plants with wind and solar bullshit that's unreliable, produces far less energy, is more expensive, and takes up far more land area. Meanwhile, they lobby against nuclear, which is an actual solution to moving past fossil fuels.
What naïve gullibility... like saying that all Chinese are Communists. Or all Russians are deeply anti Western. You're suggesting there's no room for freedom of thought (amongst other things) for those that have to operate within such structural systems. Well, within the confines of your narrow mind, the answer would be "Yes, we do buy it" and - rather hilariously - so do you.
I only wish that there was a downvote so I could use it on this comment of yours.
We all live in a capitalist society. We have to use the tools that are at our disposal to do anything. Please try to think through your ideas before you put them out in the public view.
Caitlin loves the prison system and everything it gave her. She loosened one of the bars to dig a tunnel. If it weren't for the prison system, she never could have escaped. Total hypocrite.
I have never seen any evidence that an economic system changes human nature.
BTW, in the US nearly 80 percent of the 6.1M employer firms have fewer than 10 employees. If you also consider non-employer businesses, that percentage becomes 96. I presume "Caitlan's Newsletter" is one of those millions of small corporations, does it exploit its labor?
Do I exploit my workers? How so? I put up the money, I train them, I have the government licenses required, I provide the clients, I sign-off on everything they do. Should we all split the profit equally? If so, what is the incentive for me to grow my business, to dilute further my share of the profit?
You want exploited labor? I think the US is a poor example - not saying it doesn't happen, but come on.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class established that the economic life of a modern society in the late 19th century is based upon the social stratification of tribal and feudal societies, rather than upon merit"
1. a meritocracy is inherently racists, isn't it?
2. The economic life of modern society in the early 21st century US is trying to regain social stratification based on tribalism, which it had avoided for over a century. The attacks on meritocracy is evidence of that.
3. The people in the US that are trying to recreate Veblen's world are not Capitalists, they are central authoritarian statists trying to change others' human nature.
4. They will fail at trying to change human nature, hopefully with little harm to anyone, which hasn't been the case when it was attempted before.
In Veblen's view, the productive laborers were looked down upon. In a Capitalist society, that may have been the case, but now we have a whole new class of people, the generational welfare class. This new class, which did not exist in the late 19th century, would have disgusted Veblen, as they are not only unproductive, they are liabilities. Unlike the wealthy leisure classes that Veblen and his Protestant-ethical view held in disdain.
Veblen also considered the wealthy leisure pursuits "economically unproductive." That is far from the case today where those goods and services are massively important to modern economies.
"the businessmen who own the means of production, have employed themselves in the economically unproductive practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which are useless activities that contribute neither to the economy nor to the material production of the useful goods and services required for the functioning of society"
But, none of that is supportive of the idea that an economic system can change human nature.
Veblen established that the development of our system was based on a particular form of violent society. If you wish to believe that this development ended in the 19th century, you're willfully ignoring the incidents that have happened since then and were built on the system at that point.
Would you like to point out where, at any point, the trajectory has basically changed? Please don't say " the New Deal" since it was superficial and didn't change the underlying system.
GETTING TO THE ROOT OF 'CAPITAL' (so all humanity has necessary infrastructure\, a future)
The issue for both left & right is understanding how, as Marx states in Das Kapital, 'All 'capital' (Latin 'cap' = 'head' = 'collective-intelligence) or the ability to make decisions from one's contribution, acquired experience, expertise & decision-making acumen, flows from labour'.
A number of countries worldwide such as: as Germany, Austria, Hungary, Korea (Chaebol) & Japan (Keiretsu) & previously Yugoslavia (Zadruga) obligate corporations over 30 employees to facilitate the investment of multiple-stakeholders such as Workers, Managers, Suppliers, Founders, Townspeople & Consumers. With investment stakeholders have invested interest represented on Corporate Boards. Participatory corporations have the best economic, social & environmental performance. China's Huawei Corporation, as a participatory corporation in electronics, computers & digital software is being attacked precisely because they are vastly outperforming western 'companies' (L 'com' = 'together' + 'pan' = 'bread').
Participatory corporations have a collective intelligence, which top-down hierarchal western corporations don't have. facilitate Multistakeholder participatory (L. 'part' = 'share') corporations follow laws obligating owners to facilitate the investment, ownership & board representation of workers, managers, suppliers, townspeople & consumers are government mandated for all 'corporations' (L 'corp' = 'body') over 30 employees.
The participatory economy tradition flows from all humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L 'self-generating') heritage of universal progressive ownership over the course of one's lifetime. This intelligent productive tradition was only broken through the violence of 'exogenous' (L 'other-generated') empire colonization, genocide & war through false 'money' & false 'capital'. Domestic labours & intelligence in the once worldwide ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village) is the centre of 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'). The specialized labours of women & men were organized in universal progressive-ownership of the Production-Society-Guild. Time-based equivalency accounting upon the worldwide String-shell (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island / North-America, Quipu in South America & Cowrie in pre-colonial invasion indigenous Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all the world's islands. String-shell Value systems integrate: 1) Capital, 2) 'Currency' ('flow' or 'money' from Gk. 'mnemosis' = 'memory'), 3) Condolence (social-security), 4) Collegial mentored apprenticeship educational Credit, 5) time-math Communication, 6 professional costume. Humans animate our resources through RELATIONAL-ECONOMY https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
The word "capital" had been around for centuries before Marx. One expends labour to accumulate capital which is synonymous with "wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property".
"The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy."
If "You don't get to just change someone else's definition of words to defend your belief system from their criticisms; that's not a thing." -- just exactly what is happening here?
If a man is prevented from accumulating capital (in the form of wages for instance) is he then not at the mercy of the state?
I'm not defending Jeff Bezos et. al. Nor am I claiming the conclusions in this article are wrong or misguided or incorrect.
"We are ruled by untreated malignant narcissists who were elevated by this system." -- yes and some of these narcissists call themselves Communists.
I'm looking for the alternative to Capital. Make it something more than a kumbaya thing that's out there somewhere hidden behind the bromide that the workers will own the means of production -- as if the workers are all equally intelligent, ambitious and interchangeable.
Let's Go Brandon! Keynesim Social Marxism is good! Ra-ra. America bad. Capitalism bad. Kaynes the author of our current economic policy of the Western World came from wealth and never had a real job, he also loved to visit child brothels regularly, but hey, his theory of economics was sooooo much better than Capitalism. Complete Government Control of the money supply. We DO NOT HAVE CAPITALISM anymore, that was over a long time ago. This is the new better way..., don't call it Capitalism, own up to that. It was spend more and print more and it will all be okay. Don't save for the future or rainy day because inflation will take it anyway! Ra-ra. Spend! The Matrix seems to be winning the narrative even here. The Austrian School of Economic's lessons forgotten. Let's Go Brandon is the narrative... Love that meme!
I just finished watching the short documentary The Connection. The makers say that "civilization's" problems are due to technology - even the most primitive. One comment on the chat did ask about capitalism, but the reply was that capitalism had nothing to do with it.
Could you please watch it, if you haven't already, and comment?
> No it doesn't, that's just some stupid nonsense libertarian types started saying a few years ago
then take on the concept that people are trying to describe. the concepts matter more than what labels we apply to them. I want there to be no systematization of the political/coercive means in society. I want there to only be free trade and private property rights. In that "system" (which I would say is a lack of a system, but, semantics), you can have all the worker co-ops or w/e you want as long as people enter into those arrangements voluntarily. What's wrong with that?
> Capitalism is a system which financially coerces those who have nothing to sell but their labor to sell it to the owners of the means of production, necessarily at a price that is far below the amount of value they generate and with no influence over the industries they are powering with their work.
The labor theory of value, which both Adam Smith and Karl Marx believed in, was debunked during the marginal revolution in the 1800s (while Marx was writing). Value is subjective. You can do all the hard work you want erecting life sized mahogany statues of Derek Chauvin, but that doesn't mean you've actually created any value if no one wants them. In fact, the labor theory of value is backwards. Prices don't come as some sort of culmination of all the work that was put into the good. Prices come from final product and go backwards. For example, the fact that wine is highly valued makes grapes more valuable. A machine that makes microprocessors is only valuable as long as microprocessors are valuable.
What makes selling your labor not exploitation is a matter of time preference. I'm a programmer. When I was young and had no savings, I took a job for someone older than me. He paid me up front for my services for a mutually agreed-upon salary. The game was canceled before it was ever released and not a single second of my 11 months there made a dime in revenue, but I still got paid regardless. Now, 10 years later, I've been in the industry a while and have enough savings to start my own company. I still choose not to b/c it's safer to keep making money at my current job, and, honestly, I've seen how hard my boss works, and I don't want that. I also don't have any ideas for a new game.
All that being said, if you read Sam Konkin III, he's a free market advocate who's against salary labor and sees it as a holdover from feudalism. I disagree, but there's def an argument that contract labor is more moral than salary labor.
> One inevitably leads to the other.
If you have a state involved, yeah, maybe. But hey, having a state involved with a socialist/communist economic system has inevitably lead to mass starvation every single time.
Every single time? Right now, places like Venezuela, Syria, and Iran have food shortages due to good old American sanctions (which of course have zero to do with furthering various corporate interests). It's funny how Socialism effects American politicians: It's so terrible that we go out of our way to destroy any country in this hemisphere that attempts it.
True, Venezuela has suffered from American corporate and political meddling for years, as just about every Central and South American state has. Given this meddling, it's really difficult for me to judge any of these Socialist movements on their own merits.
I'm glad we are in total agreement regarding sanctions. I feel reassured imagining all the corporate lobbyists whispering in our politicians' ears, "Please stop the sanctions!"
Caitlin is echoing the words of populist Abrabam Lincoln who said, "Labor is the true standard of value."
"Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn."
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
"And I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to! I would to God that such a system prevailed all over the world.”
"But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Note that Lincoln said it is the duty of any good government to protect the workers from having the fruits of their labor stolen by the class of owners who are not doing the work. There is no "Party of Lincoln" today in the duopoly party since both Republicans and Democrats don't believe in protecting workers from owner class exploitation and theft of the laborer's fruits.
Corporate limited liability exists, only because the law says so. There is also a substantial body of literature comparing the behavior of corporations where management are not necessarily owners with that of sociopaths.
Take away corporate limited liability, and where would modern-day capitalism be?
We can complain all we want or suggest gov to do this or that. But like Caitlin appears to be saying is IT can't be done bc everything is in the hands of the Capitalists.
Or at least hold the corporate decision makers responsible for the evils they cause. Repeal "Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific".
https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Company
Capital corrupts because we allow it to corrupt.
Correct. It IS capitalism. No matter the rest of the regulations to control the herd of human cattle. But since during the last 50 years the intellectual representation of critique of political economy has been systematically wiped out from academe, and the intellectuals turned into opportunistic parasites and watch dogs of the good shepherds of western democracies, and almost any kind of rule besides the one in China and - again - What is now Russia has been declared to be 'democratic', the everyday consciousness of people raised - 'socialization - and conditioned by state education and mass media either state run or corporations, there is not a trace left of any semantic point of reference where an effective political opposition could crystallize its own intellectual representation without an entanglement in the phrases and semantic stereotypes of the white noise of the propaganda inundating the minds of the people held down with the empty and redundant nonsense and dissimulation the parasites - the intellectual have turned into - proliferate from payed outlets they are recruited for to fabricate the functional equivalents of the Roman Catholic Church of the late Imperium Romanum and the Middle Ages, that is: 'Social Technology', or more correct, since even this term is ideological: The technology to control and more, to systematically destroy anything that could be rightly called 'social'. So we have 'social sciences' were nothing social is left working, a science of 'society' without a society left, and a sociology that is cleaned from anything hinting at the permanent wars that are at the basis of all 'progress' and are a necessary ingredient of all 'development', and a kind of psychologcalization of 'political science, that always blames some malignant individual for the failures of attempts to make a better world with a world order of permanent peace, a practice to explain the world and the facts of geopolitics that provides for the pretext for' 'regime change' practice that destroys whole countries and civilizations with all the means for mass murder that the military/economic/parlamentary/financial/industrial complex can drop as a bomb carpet or a drone strike from heaven over the people who's death always is an accidental collateral damage.
☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️🙄
And here I thought badmouthing Israel was the ultimate trigger; I see besmirching Capitalism really empties the woodwork. I'm surprised and impressed!
Another great weaving of the same long thread, Caitlin. I'm no smarty-pants economist so my following comments are necessarily pedestrian:
Any system -- whatever you want to call it -- that results in 26 individuals controlling half the wealth of the planet is due for some sort of reckoning.
If you go back to the seventies and chart both productivity and CEO compensation you will see both rise steadily. What hasn't risen is worker compensation, even though they are creating more wealth. Why?
When financial institutions crashed the economy around 2008-09, they received bailout money under the TARP program. Bank of America, which received $45 billion in TARP money, paid itself $3.3 billion in bonuses, with 172 employees receiving at least $1 million. I leave this little tidbit here for those who still claim that our entire problem lies within government.
The democrat's bad Kabuki to raise the minimum wage from its current paltry sum of $7.25 needs no further comment. Any decently operating economic system shouldn't need a government-mandated wage at all, meager as it is. But we do need it, obviously. Why?
Unions are only as good as their leadership, but the decline in union membership mirrors the steady decline of the American worker. The largest employer in the 50s was IBM; now it's WalMart.
Most truth to be had these days comes from consumer-supported, often shoestring operations sprinkled around the Net; purveyors of the rankest disinformation (aside from government sources like the CIA and State Department) come from corporate platforms and industry-affiliated entities. If we get rid of the government as some suggest, this still doesn't address the glaringly uniform dearth of reliable information shoveled by corporate sources.
Thomas Jefferson may have had a thing for slaves, but he knew what he was talking about when he warned of the danger of "moneyed interests" perverting government to their own ends. Chalk one up for Tom.
Each and every attempt by people in this hemisphere to realize any form of Socialism has met with the most nefarious and extreme violence by the United States. Murder, rape, and assassination, for those in the cheap seats. Any economic system that merrily co-exists and indeed helps precipitate these actions really ought to explain itself.
I'll close with the words of that famous economist George Carlin: "The upper class owns all the wealth and pay none of the taxes; the middle class does all the work and pays all of the taxes; and the lower class is there to scare the hell out of the middle class."
I cannot imagine a world without government.
Nor a world without the opportunity for each of us to accumulate capital for our own benefit.
I can imagine severe restrictions on, and prosecution of, those who use capital to corrupt government, as well as those who use their position in government to accumulate capital.
I assume that you are an American. Like most Americans, you seem to conflate "capitalism" with "government," (i.e. "democracy").
Let's look at it this way: it's a graph. One axis, let's say the 'Y' axis, is economics, from the least organized (controlled) - (hunter-gatherer) - to the most strictly controlled. The other axis, the 'X' axis is politics, from the least controlled system (small societies) to the most controlled (totalitarianism).
In this way, Americans can overcome the thinking that has been drilled into their heads since first grade that a particular economic system, which they have been taught is good/bad, with different political systems, which they have been taught are good/bad.
"Government" is different from the travesty that is now in control of the US. Of course some kind of government is better than none. But what kind? Humans have been trying to determine that since Plato.
I do not think most Americans conflate government and capitalism (it wouldn't be 'capitalism' anyway but 'business' which would include manufacturing, sales, etc.)
Many, if not most, Americans now recognize that government and business have become unified under control of the same people which some call the Oligarchy. The faces presented to us are different, but we know the power behind those faces is the same group.
However, when Caitlin writes about Capitalism, she does not explain how that is separate from Capital nor does she explain how "decision-making and investments are determined." Who decides what gets built and how resources are distributed?
Let's admit that even in Cuba, Doctors will abandon their calling to become limo drivers because that is how they can best accumulate capital. It is a more profitable way of deploying their labor.
Obviously, the distribution of wealth in the USA is immoral. Is that not a failure of politicians to rectify that situation? Which in turn means, that if we believe in democracy and one man one vote, a failure of the voter to ensure the politicians they support are moral men?
Yes, something should be done. But limiting that something to just "do away with capitalism", leaves an unimaginable void.
Let me make myself clear: I said "LIKE MOST AMERICANS...YOU" Her it is: I'm saying you are conflating "business"(capitalism) with "government." In general, I've found that, in your thinking, you tend to substitute one concept for another quite easily. Case in point: when I said "Like most Americans, YOU," you responded with "what most Americans (probably) think" instead of defending yourself from my politely-worded accusation. Or maybe you just don't get subtlety.
And I’m saying you have no idea what I think. Rather than address my response you double-down on being ridiculous
Speaking of shoestring operations around the Net, watch The Con documentary for the inside dope about the bank fraud that created the 2007-2008 housing crisis. After they stole people's homes with ploys such as using whiteout to cover the correct figures and putting in inflated figures, as well as signing documents with fake names. The TARP bailouts came later.
It also shows how the courts were supporting the banks.
Caitlin, your ignorance of what a corporation is or how one is created is not proof of your assertion that capitalism (private ownership of property) inevitably leads to corporatism as smoking leads to emphysema. In our system, governments grant corporate charters and in doing so grant those corporations 1) the privilege of limited liability for investors and 2) legal personhood. There is nothing inherent in private property ownership that implies government must recognize such corporate entities, grant their investors limited liability or give those entities the natural rights possessed by actual individual human beings.
It is possible for an economy to consist almost entirely of small shops and factories, each owned by individuals or partnerships in which investors are 100% liable for all debts and torts. Such small owners would be very reluctant to invest in enterprises they can't directly control in order to minimize the risk of unexpected torts or economic downturns causing them to default on loans. Due to the risk involved, infrastructure would be lacking unless government stepped in to fill the void through state-owned enterprises managed for the benefit of the entire population.
As yet, no society has chosen to take the path of private enterprise without corporate entities, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Yes, Limited Liability is a privilege. And what does society or Government get in return…? Well, in 2007/8 the European & US Govt bailout of the banking sector cost $4,000 billion! That was a banking sector that had unprecedented debt-to-equity leverage ratios, incredibly high risks and serious conflicts of interest between creditors and equity investors… and they could get away with it safe in the knowledge that they had been granted Limited Liability. Has much changed since then? No.
Whether it’s what individuals receive in return for their labour, or granting Limited Liability to corporations in return for so little, it’s our Governments that allow and indeed enable this to happen.
Reading this, one gets the impression that all this takes place in a vacuum. Corporations (and individuals as well) point to this or that law or regulation claiming its the law, yet neglect to mention all the intense lobbying (bribery, legal and otherwise) which goes into making certain that just such an outcome takes place. Corporations such as Apple and Google expend untold resources to ensure that anti-monopoly laws are not enforced. If we could magically get rid of government, I don't see these negative self-serving influences evaporating.
Unless we get rid of corporations at the same time we get rid of government, then make sure nobody can ever create a corporation in the future. We'd still be vulnerable to the authoritarianism of government bureaucrats, but if we've preserved small, non-corporate enterprises, we'd have some hope of countering government power centers.
Indeed, and let's also be clear on what "privilege" is. "Privilege" is a government-granted subsidy or advantage. All "privileges" are "advantages," but the reverse is not true. Some people are lucky enough to be born into a family that values education, as I was. This is not a government-granted "privilege," as in "white privilege," and poor whites are no more "privileged" in our society than the poor of any other race. Some are blessed with functional parents, as I was. Some do not have functional parents, but are raised by functional grandparents, as was JD Vance. They face the same murderous police as the poor of any other race, like Daniel Shaver or Tony Timpa. They face the same snobbery, as in Hillary's "deplorables" remark. They do not enjoy the government granted the privilege of affirmative action and therefore find it more difficult to be admitted to Ivy League schools. I write this as someone sympathetic to "racial justice" and true diversity, who taught in inner city schools and married a black woman, who supported the concept of affirmative action but not the quota system that inevitably followed. I would have designed affirmative action as seeking out disadvantaged individuals of ALL races, such as kids from economically depressed areas, or children of low income parents. It should never have been about race.
Every time a nation attempts to detach from Capitalism they feel the heavy hand of American Imperialism.
Repace "Capitalism" with "Corporatism" and I'll agree 100%. No society can survive without markets, more or less free.
Sadly, most Americans are clueless as to what capitalism is. In fact, as Umair Haque recently pointed out, very few Americans are capitalists because they depend on earned wage incomes to survive. Likewise, Americans are clueless as to what the other major economic system, communism, is. We all just learned in high school that communism is the antithesis of free market trade and American democratic freedoms – it’s evil. That is all most people know.
In my view, there is ample evidence that both economic systems are equally vulnerable to corruption, and both systems exploit workers to a varying extent. The sturm un drang between the systems merely provides useful motivation to confuse and manipulate the workforces in either one.
Caitlin is a total Capitalist. She is using the fruits of Capitalism to speak. She has benefited tremendously from Capitalism. She is furthering Capitalism by using it's tools.
Does anyone actually buy this garbage of hers?
The air is polluted (by capitalists), yet we have to breathe it to survive. The water is polluted (by capitalists), yet we have to drink it. Would you fault a person for peacefully and eloquently criticizing that pollution? If Caitlin can reduce that pollution (of air, water, economy, and spirit), she will benefit everyone, you included, who will not have to pay her a dime for the benefit. Will you resent her for voluntarily gifting you, a stranger, a benefit for which you have not paid and which comes freely from the kindness of her heart. By capitalist standards, sharing and gifting are reprehensible “business models”, because we can take it or leave it, as we like. She does not violate an iota of our freedom. She does not use force or fraud to get you to buy her content. Can you say the same for landlords, oligarchs, or other capitalists who takes (by force of imperial law) their various forms of rent?
Environmentalism has only ever arisen in wealthy societies that have privately owned means of production. If you're worried about feeding yourself and your family, you don't give a shit about the environment. This is why pollution is worse in poorer countries. Just compare the environmental records of the USA vs the USSR.
The pollution is worse in poorer countries because they don't have the laws that industrially advanced countries have. Therefore, the advanced countries take advantage of this to move into the disadvantaged countries and pollute there, when they can't do it at home.
Case in point: DDT. When there was enough public outrage over DDT, it was banned in the US. However, they didn't stop making it; they just sold it to countries in Central and South America. (Where much of the food that is imported into the United States is grown. Karma's a bitch.)
And how do those laws come about? Did the government just have a great idea out of nowhere one day and impose them on us? Or, did the US get wealthy enough that activist groups started arising and pressured the gov't into those laws?
DDT's not the W you think it is. Yes, it is somewhat toxic, but Rachel Carson had no evidence for that at the time she was writing about it and completely fabricated everything in Silent Spring. Meanwhile, DDT wiped out malaria in North America, and you can sure as hell make an argument that DDT would be worth the tradeoff in Africa in order to get the malaria under control there. Malaria kills over 500k people every year.
https://mises.org/library/spring-silent-ddt
"It's easier to lie to a person than to convince them that they have been lied to."
We should remind ourselves that the biggest polluter on the planet is the United States military, the armed wing of the petroleum industry.
P.S. The rich aren't concerned about "feeding their families." False analogy.
Thorstein Veblen explained what the motivation for accumulating is for the rich in The Theory of the Leisure Class.
One could argue that the first environmentalists were the most primitive native tribes who had a real stake in living in balance with their surroundings. And looking around today, one could rephrase your sentence to read, "If you're worried about your shareholder's third quarter profit margin, you don't give a shit about the environment." I believe Chevron has something to teach us about that.
> One could argue that the first environmentalists were the most primitive native tribes who had a real stake in living in balance with their surroundings.
and I'm sure a class of second-graders would think you were very deep
> I believe Chevron has something to teach us about that.
https://www.chevron.com/sustainability/environment
Now, yes, that is likely 90%+ propaganda and they don't talk about all the pollution they cause, but at the very least they're outwardly concerned about appearing environmentally conscious. Meanwhile, the USSR destroyed lake Baikal, stripped itself of its bounty of natural resources, and caused the greatest environmental disaster of all time at Chernobyl.
I was thinking more the Donziger case, but yeah, lot's of corporate greenwashing going on. It's all optics while their lobbyists work to strip any meaningful environmental actions out of relevant bills. It's the petroleum industry's version of being photographed kneeling in Kente cloth and then increasing Capitol Police funding a billion dollars.
And, yes, the Soviets polluted like crazy. No argument there. (How much their totalitarian brand represented all that Socialism has to offer is up for grabs).
The green energy industry has plenty of lobbyists of their own (and a whole lot more propaganda at their disposal since Hollywood is all in). It's strange to me when people act like only the oil companies lobby. These green energy fuckers are trying to replace working power plants with wind and solar bullshit that's unreliable, produces far less energy, is more expensive, and takes up far more land area. Meanwhile, they lobby against nuclear, which is an actual solution to moving past fossil fuels.
What naïve gullibility... like saying that all Chinese are Communists. Or all Russians are deeply anti Western. You're suggesting there's no room for freedom of thought (amongst other things) for those that have to operate within such structural systems. Well, within the confines of your narrow mind, the answer would be "Yes, we do buy it" and - rather hilariously - so do you.
I only wish that there was a downvote so I could use it on this comment of yours.
We all live in a capitalist society. We have to use the tools that are at our disposal to do anything. Please try to think through your ideas before you put them out in the public view.
Along with down-voting an edit option would be most appreciated.
Yes, very much so! For the times when spell-check strikes again!
Well, yes, but I'm thinking more of my own dumb fingers.
Caitlin loves the prison system and everything it gave her. She loosened one of the bars to dig a tunnel. If it weren't for the prison system, she never could have escaped. Total hypocrite.
I have never seen any evidence that an economic system changes human nature.
BTW, in the US nearly 80 percent of the 6.1M employer firms have fewer than 10 employees. If you also consider non-employer businesses, that percentage becomes 96. I presume "Caitlan's Newsletter" is one of those millions of small corporations, does it exploit its labor?
Do I exploit my workers? How so? I put up the money, I train them, I have the government licenses required, I provide the clients, I sign-off on everything they do. Should we all split the profit equally? If so, what is the incentive for me to grow my business, to dilute further my share of the profit?
You want exploited labor? I think the US is a poor example - not saying it doesn't happen, but come on.
"You have never seen any evidence" doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist, just that you haven't worked hard enough to find it.
Read The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen. He lays it all out in his book.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class established that the economic life of a modern society in the late 19th century is based upon the social stratification of tribal and feudal societies, rather than upon merit"
1. a meritocracy is inherently racists, isn't it?
2. The economic life of modern society in the early 21st century US is trying to regain social stratification based on tribalism, which it had avoided for over a century. The attacks on meritocracy is evidence of that.
3. The people in the US that are trying to recreate Veblen's world are not Capitalists, they are central authoritarian statists trying to change others' human nature.
4. They will fail at trying to change human nature, hopefully with little harm to anyone, which hasn't been the case when it was attempted before.
In Veblen's view, the productive laborers were looked down upon. In a Capitalist society, that may have been the case, but now we have a whole new class of people, the generational welfare class. This new class, which did not exist in the late 19th century, would have disgusted Veblen, as they are not only unproductive, they are liabilities. Unlike the wealthy leisure classes that Veblen and his Protestant-ethical view held in disdain.
Veblen also considered the wealthy leisure pursuits "economically unproductive." That is far from the case today where those goods and services are massively important to modern economies.
"the businessmen who own the means of production, have employed themselves in the economically unproductive practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which are useless activities that contribute neither to the economy nor to the material production of the useful goods and services required for the functioning of society"
But, none of that is supportive of the idea that an economic system can change human nature.
Thanks for the tip on Veblan.
That's compartmentalization.
Veblen established that the development of our system was based on a particular form of violent society. If you wish to believe that this development ended in the 19th century, you're willfully ignoring the incidents that have happened since then and were built on the system at that point.
Would you like to point out where, at any point, the trajectory has basically changed? Please don't say " the New Deal" since it was superficial and didn't change the underlying system.
She's an actual idiot who does not understand that government is the problem, not free transactions between humans.
Did you come on her website just to criticize her? Isn't that the definition of a troll?
Why are you here, then? You're not here to learn anything.
Did any relatives work for the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company by any chance?
GETTING TO THE ROOT OF 'CAPITAL' (so all humanity has necessary infrastructure\, a future)
The issue for both left & right is understanding how, as Marx states in Das Kapital, 'All 'capital' (Latin 'cap' = 'head' = 'collective-intelligence) or the ability to make decisions from one's contribution, acquired experience, expertise & decision-making acumen, flows from labour'.
A number of countries worldwide such as: as Germany, Austria, Hungary, Korea (Chaebol) & Japan (Keiretsu) & previously Yugoslavia (Zadruga) obligate corporations over 30 employees to facilitate the investment of multiple-stakeholders such as Workers, Managers, Suppliers, Founders, Townspeople & Consumers. With investment stakeholders have invested interest represented on Corporate Boards. Participatory corporations have the best economic, social & environmental performance. China's Huawei Corporation, as a participatory corporation in electronics, computers & digital software is being attacked precisely because they are vastly outperforming western 'companies' (L 'com' = 'together' + 'pan' = 'bread').
Participatory corporations have a collective intelligence, which top-down hierarchal western corporations don't have. facilitate Multistakeholder participatory (L. 'part' = 'share') corporations follow laws obligating owners to facilitate the investment, ownership & board representation of workers, managers, suppliers, townspeople & consumers are government mandated for all 'corporations' (L 'corp' = 'body') over 30 employees.
The participatory economy tradition flows from all humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L 'self-generating') heritage of universal progressive ownership over the course of one's lifetime. This intelligent productive tradition was only broken through the violence of 'exogenous' (L 'other-generated') empire colonization, genocide & war through false 'money' & false 'capital'. Domestic labours & intelligence in the once worldwide ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village) is the centre of 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture'). The specialized labours of women & men were organized in universal progressive-ownership of the Production-Society-Guild. Time-based equivalency accounting upon the worldwide String-shell (eg. Wampum on Turtle-Island / North-America, Quipu in South America & Cowrie in pre-colonial invasion indigenous Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia & all the world's islands. String-shell Value systems integrate: 1) Capital, 2) 'Currency' ('flow' or 'money' from Gk. 'mnemosis' = 'memory'), 3) Condolence (social-security), 4) Collegial mentored apprenticeship educational Credit, 5) time-math Communication, 6 professional costume. Humans animate our resources through RELATIONAL-ECONOMY https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
In order for 'Political' (L 'poly' = 'many' + 'tics' = 'workings-of') Democracy to exist, it needs a universal foundation of Economic-Democracy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
This is what Prof Richard Wolff says.
The word "capital" had been around for centuries before Marx. One expends labour to accumulate capital which is synonymous with "wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property".
"The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy."
If "You don't get to just change someone else's definition of words to defend your belief system from their criticisms; that's not a thing." -- just exactly what is happening here?
If a man is prevented from accumulating capital (in the form of wages for instance) is he then not at the mercy of the state?
I'm not defending Jeff Bezos et. al. Nor am I claiming the conclusions in this article are wrong or misguided or incorrect.
"We are ruled by untreated malignant narcissists who were elevated by this system." -- yes and some of these narcissists call themselves Communists.
I'm looking for the alternative to Capital. Make it something more than a kumbaya thing that's out there somewhere hidden behind the bromide that the workers will own the means of production -- as if the workers are all equally intelligent, ambitious and interchangeable.
Let's Go Brandon! Keynesim Social Marxism is good! Ra-ra. America bad. Capitalism bad. Kaynes the author of our current economic policy of the Western World came from wealth and never had a real job, he also loved to visit child brothels regularly, but hey, his theory of economics was sooooo much better than Capitalism. Complete Government Control of the money supply. We DO NOT HAVE CAPITALISM anymore, that was over a long time ago. This is the new better way..., don't call it Capitalism, own up to that. It was spend more and print more and it will all be okay. Don't save for the future or rainy day because inflation will take it anyway! Ra-ra. Spend! The Matrix seems to be winning the narrative even here. The Austrian School of Economic's lessons forgotten. Let's Go Brandon is the narrative... Love that meme!
I just finished watching the short documentary The Connection. The makers say that "civilization's" problems are due to technology - even the most primitive. One comment on the chat did ask about capitalism, but the reply was that capitalism had nothing to do with it.
Could you please watch it, if you haven't already, and comment?
> No it doesn't, that's just some stupid nonsense libertarian types started saying a few years ago
then take on the concept that people are trying to describe. the concepts matter more than what labels we apply to them. I want there to be no systematization of the political/coercive means in society. I want there to only be free trade and private property rights. In that "system" (which I would say is a lack of a system, but, semantics), you can have all the worker co-ops or w/e you want as long as people enter into those arrangements voluntarily. What's wrong with that?
> Capitalism is a system which financially coerces those who have nothing to sell but their labor to sell it to the owners of the means of production, necessarily at a price that is far below the amount of value they generate and with no influence over the industries they are powering with their work.
The labor theory of value, which both Adam Smith and Karl Marx believed in, was debunked during the marginal revolution in the 1800s (while Marx was writing). Value is subjective. You can do all the hard work you want erecting life sized mahogany statues of Derek Chauvin, but that doesn't mean you've actually created any value if no one wants them. In fact, the labor theory of value is backwards. Prices don't come as some sort of culmination of all the work that was put into the good. Prices come from final product and go backwards. For example, the fact that wine is highly valued makes grapes more valuable. A machine that makes microprocessors is only valuable as long as microprocessors are valuable.
What makes selling your labor not exploitation is a matter of time preference. I'm a programmer. When I was young and had no savings, I took a job for someone older than me. He paid me up front for my services for a mutually agreed-upon salary. The game was canceled before it was ever released and not a single second of my 11 months there made a dime in revenue, but I still got paid regardless. Now, 10 years later, I've been in the industry a while and have enough savings to start my own company. I still choose not to b/c it's safer to keep making money at my current job, and, honestly, I've seen how hard my boss works, and I don't want that. I also don't have any ideas for a new game.
All that being said, if you read Sam Konkin III, he's a free market advocate who's against salary labor and sees it as a holdover from feudalism. I disagree, but there's def an argument that contract labor is more moral than salary labor.
> One inevitably leads to the other.
If you have a state involved, yeah, maybe. But hey, having a state involved with a socialist/communist economic system has inevitably lead to mass starvation every single time.
Every single time? Right now, places like Venezuela, Syria, and Iran have food shortages due to good old American sanctions (which of course have zero to do with furthering various corporate interests). It's funny how Socialism effects American politicians: It's so terrible that we go out of our way to destroy any country in this hemisphere that attempts it.
Venezuela's food shortages started before the sanctions.
(for the record, 'sanctions', i.e. siege warfare, is straight up murder of innocent civilians, and I am in no way trying to excuse or downplay them)
True, Venezuela has suffered from American corporate and political meddling for years, as just about every Central and South American state has. Given this meddling, it's really difficult for me to judge any of these Socialist movements on their own merits.
I'm glad we are in total agreement regarding sanctions. I feel reassured imagining all the corporate lobbyists whispering in our politicians' ears, "Please stop the sanctions!"
I am in no way attempting to defend the status quo or the current class of corporate and gov't elites.
I appreciate that. We can have a beer now.